Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.28 seconds)Section 7 in The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Shiv Kumar @ Rulia vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 14 February, 2023
Conspicuously, for the reasons that
the view taken in Rulia Khan's case (supra), and, in Orion Infrastructure
Limited's case (supra), thus on a plain and literal construction of statutory
coinages (supra), which occur in Section 13-B of the Act of 1961, rather is
11 of 23
::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2025 23:20:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010026-DB
CWP No. 8740 of 1999 (O&M) -12-
per incuriam the underlined statutory coinages (supra).
Aswini Kumar Ghose And Anr. vs Arabinda Bose And Anr. on 12 December, 1952
In Aswini Kumar Ghose Vs. Arabinda
Bose, AIR 1952 SC 369, it has been held that "It is not a sound
principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being
inapposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate application in
circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute".
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh And Another vs The State Of Vindhya Pradesh on 22 May, 1953
Similar observation was made in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh & Anr.
Vs. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1953 SC 394 that "It is incumbent
on the court to avoid a construction, if reasonably permissible on
the language, which would render a part of the statute devoid of any
meaning or application".
The J. K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills ... vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 12 December, 1960
In J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills
Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1170, it was observed that
"the courts always presume that the Legislature inserted every part
thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part
of the statute should have effect". The Legislature is deemed not to
waste its words or to say anything in vain and a construction which
attributes redundancy to the Legislature will not be accepted except
for compelling reasons. In the present case, we do not find any
reason to give construction to the provision of Section 13-B(2) of the
Act of 1961, by rendering some portion or words of the provision as
meaningless or redundant. Sub-section (2) of Section 13-B of the Act
of 1961 deals with two types of revisions, firstly on the application
made by a person aggrieved against an order passed under the
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 7, and secondly, the
Commissioner has been given suo motu power to revise or modify
any order passed by any authority subordinate to him. The
Commissioner has been given wide suo motu power to pass any
order in relation to any proceedings or order passed by any
authority subordinate to him, as he may deem fit."
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sudesh Kumari And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 13 January, 2016
18. The reason which has been portrayed in the above extracted
paragraph, rather for the Division Bench taking the above view, arose from
its concluding, that in the legislature employing the said coinages in the
above extracted provision, is therebys thus deemed not to waste its words or
to say anything in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to the
Legislature, except for compelling reasons rather will not be accepted.
Therefore, to avoid the assigning of redundancy to the employment of the
statutory coinage (supra), in the provisions cast under Section 7 of the Act of
1961, thus the Division Bench of this Court concluded, that the expanse of
the said statutory coinages, spreads even to a situation, whereby the
respondent in the eviction petition, who despite not rearing, thus within the
domain of the proviso, as occurs thereins, hence any question of title,
whereby he/she resists the assertion of title, as made to the disputed lands by
the petitioner/Gram Panchayat in the eviction petition, rather becoming
empowered to avail the revisional remedies (supra). The judgment (supra)
also became concurred by a verdict rendered by the Division Bench of this
Court in case titled as Sudesh Kumar and others versus State of Haryana
and others, reported in 2019(4) PLR 204.